BEHAVIOUR OF GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES 2012 - 2013

Fabrice EMERIAULT

GENERAL OUTLINE
Introduction Shallow foundations Retaining structures: gravity walls Retaining structures: flexible walls Deep foundations Soil improvement

FLEXIBLE WALLS

OUTLINE
Introduction Different types of flexible walls Failure mechanisms Specific aspects of the behaviour
Active and passive pressures on a flexible wall Arching effect Incidence of construction phases

Design methods
Simplified Empirical Subgrade reaction method FE calculations

Design of the anchors

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION
Retaining walls
What are they used for ? What are the main mechanisms involved ?
Gravity walls Flexible walls

Temporary or definitive walls Installed in the native soil Generally:

Water tight Use structural elements to equilibrate a part of the horizontal efforts

THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLEXIBLE WALLS

SHEET PILE WALLS

Continuous wall made of steel profiles assembled during installation in the soil

CIRCULAR EXCAVATION WITH SHEET PILES

Cofferdam

Sheet pile wall with 4 levels of anchors

Quay walls

Installation by: - hammering - vibrations - jacking

DIAPHRAGM WALLS

PRE-CAST WALLS

SECANT PILE WALLS

SOLDIER PILE WALLS

SLURRY WALLS

FLEXIBLE WALLS

OUTLINE
Introduction Different types of flexible walls Failure mechanisms Specific aspects of the behaviour
Active and passive pressures on a flexible wall Arching effect Incidence of construction phases

Design methods
Simplified Empirical Subgrade reaction method FE calculations

Design of the anchors

Temporary or definitive walls Installed in the native soil Generally:

Water tight Use structural elements to equilibrate a part of the horizontal efforts

HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Struts inside the excavation Anchors in the ground Elements of the future structure installed top-down Slabs Beams

Temporary steel struts

Anchors: temporary action (long term efforts transmitted to the floors)

Reinforced concrete beams constructed top-down (beams will support the final floors)

Horizontal support brought by (partial) floors

FAILURE MECHANISMS

NON ANCHORED WALL

Failure by overturning Embedment depth is not suffisant

Failure by excessive bending Under-designed wall

ANCHORED WALL
Failure by wall toe excessive displacement Passive force is not suffisant

Fiche Embedment depth is not insuffisante suffisant

Internal failure of the anchor Or failure of the groutsoil interface Strut buckling

Failure by overturning due to lack of horizontal resistance of anchor or strut

Failure by excessive bending (strength of the material is reached) Example of Nicholl Highway - Singapore

NICOLL HIGHWAY EXCAVATION 3 DAYS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE

SOUTH

SECTION S335

NORTH NICOLL HIGHWAY

GROUND LEVEL

1 2 3 4 5

10m

VERY SOFT MARINE CLAY

6 7 8

20m

9am waler starts to fail at 9th level increased wall movements

30m

OLD ALLUVIUM

20th APRIL 2004

Length of the anchor is not suffisant

Global failure Soft soil Inclinaison of anchor too large Wall too thin Failure by lack of bearing capacity at the toe

Case of a wall in a general slope

Overall failure = slope stability problem

Main concern in urban site

failure by excessive deformation

Failure of the bottom of the excavation

Possible with a very soft soil

Occurs when the hydraulic gradient at the bottom of the excavation reaches the critical value

ic = -/w

Occurs when the pore pressure under the least permeable soil layer is larger than the total vertical stress

SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE

BEHAVIOUR

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURE

DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FLEXIBLE WALLS
Depend on the wall kinematics

ARCHING EFFECT
Terzaghis trapdoor experiment (1936)

trappe

Stress concentration on the boundaries of the fixed zone Stress decrease within the moving zone

Illustration of the arching effects in the case of flexible vertical walls

EFFECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCES

DESIGN METHODS

OUTLINE
Design methods
Simplified Empirical Subgrade reaction method FE calculations

INTRODUCTION
Complex soilstructure interaction problem linked to:
The geometry of the problem The soil properties The presence of supports (struts, anchors)

But also and essentially to:

The initial state of the soil The stiffness of the wall The effect of water The sequences of construction

Different levels of design approaches:

Empirical approach Simplified theoretical mechanisms Sub-grade reaction method Finite element method calculation or equivalent

Due to the complexity of the problem, the different approaches are complementary

SIMPLIFIED THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Based on theoretical active and passive pressure distributions Different methods depending on the type of wall (non anchored, anchored, passive anchor, rigid wall or flexible wall) Consider separately the horizontal and vertical components of efforts acting on the wall Actually the vertical component is generally neglected

Non anchored wall

Correspond to the overturning failure mechanism and therefore to a lack of embedment depth: A safety coefficient is applied to the passive forces B and CB (F is generally taken equal to 1.5 or 2)

For simplification, the passive force CB is replaced by a concentrated force at the point of rotation

P f f0 B/F CB

f0 is obtained through the moment equilibrium MO(P) = MO(B) CB is obtained through the horizontal force equilibrium f calculated in order to mobilize CB* or approx. f= 1,2. f0

P f f0 B/F O CB

* CB = [1/F].(Kp./2).[(H+f) - (H+f0)].cos

Anchored rigid wall

A A

Bending moment

Unknowns : f;A
f B/F P

Corresponds to a rotational failure due to the lack of embedment depth: A safety coefficient must be applied to the passive force (generally 1.5 or 2)

A A

Determination of f:
Moment equilibrium written in A

Anchor force:
Equilibrium of horizontal forces
f B/F P

Anchored flexible wall

For simplification, the passive force CB is replaced by a concentrated force at the point of rotation

P f f0 B CB

A Bending moment

Hyperstatic problem:
3 unknowns: A, f, CB

d f f0 B

P CB

Determination of the point where bending moment is null

Assumptions on the position of this point:

- d = point where pressure is null (p=a) - or d~0,1.H (after Blum)

P d d f f0 B CB P T

The wall is divided in 2 isostatic beams

P d d f f0 B CB f0 B P CB P T T

The wall is divided in 2 isostatic beams

A A

P d T

Determination of T: Moment equilibrium written in A Determination of the anchor force A: Equilibrium of horizontal forces

Upper beam

Determination of f0:
Moment equilibrium written in O (where CB is applied)

Determination of CB (not necessary):

f

Equilibrium of horizontal forces

T f0 B P CB

Determination of f
Required height for mobilization of CB Or approx.: f= d+1.2 f0

Lower beam

Choice of the method

Lhypothse sur lencastrement pilote de faon importante la forme et lamplitude du diagramme des moments

Observations by Rowe
From small scale model tests, Rowe has shown that the behaviour of the wall depends mainly on its bending stiffness The maximum bending moment and the anchor force decrease drastically when the flexibility of the wall increases The bending flexibility can be defined by the coefficient

= H4 / E.I

Wall flexibility:

= H4 / E.I

Correction on the maximum bending moment proposed by Rowe

Summary of the simplified methods

Accurate estimation of: The embedment depth, The bending moments, The anchor force Limits: Do not account for the construction sequences The deformation of the wall can not be determined Not applicable for complex walls: several rows of anchors, possibly active anchors

Be careful !
Results strongly depend on the soil properties, in particular the cohesion Whatever the method !

EMPIRICAL METHODS
Based on the observation of the behaviour of real walls Can propose a simple design method for simple or very complex cases
for example several rows of struts or anchors

Application limited to the types of soil and wall considered in the calibration of the empirical method

Excavation with several levels of struts

Complexity of the problem due to the numerous redistributions of effort at each phase of excavation

The deformation is strongly limited in the upper part. Redistributions of active pressures are induced with a concentration at the top of the wall

Terzaghi and Peck have monitored a large number of real walls in order to determine the efforts induced in the struts. The proposed diagrams represent the envelop of the measured efforts. It does not correspond to the real pressure distribution but is an empirical approach for the design of struts !

Diagrams proposed in the EAB german code

SUBGRADE REACTION METHOD

Based on Winklers approach Account for the active and passive limits to pressure Presents a certain number of advantages compared to the empirical methods But has its own limitations

Winklers approach
Analogy with a beam resting on independant elastic springs = k w Gives the possibility to determine the efforts and moments in the beam (necessary for concrete design) Simplified approach: stress in one point only depends on the movement of this point
P1 P2 W

Application to vertical walls

Even tough the very crude assumption of independant springs is considered,
y(x) extrieur (e)

The extension of the approach to walls requires the determination of more complex contact laws such as: (e) = K0. v - kh. y(x) (i) = K0. v + kh. y(x)

Intrieur (i)

These laws must be complex, non linear and present hysteresis

Developpement of softwares at the end of the 60s Largely used by consultants (Rido, K-Rea, )

Subgrade reaction law

Based on active/passive pressure tests h k p v
Experimental curve

v h k 0 v k a v

Approximation by a tri-linear law with a limitation on the active and passive pressure

General case

h k p v

k 0 v k a v y

Cohesive soil h
Passive pressure For cohesive soil, the theoretical active pressure can locally be negative, thus inducing traction between the soil and the wall In this case, the stress is considered equal to 0

k 0 v
Active pressure

Irreversible behaviour h
A Passive pressure C Induces a shift of the reaction curve (path ABC) B When the soil reaches the active or passive limit, an irreversible behaviour is observed

k 0 v
pousse thorique

Illustration in the case of passive pressure

h
Passive pressure

k 0 v
pousse thorique

Illustration in the case of active pressure

Unloading behaviour k 0 v h

New passive pressure

Different rules can be proposed for the position of the new reaction curve

New active pressure

Subgrade reaction method

1st step:
Define the initial conditions, i.e. the initial force in each spring: (e) = K0. v (i) = K0. v It can also account for a surcharge at ground surface, the presence of the water table extrieur (e) At that point, no bending moment or shear force in the wall.

Intrieur (i)

2nd step (for example):

y(x) A first excavation is defined The corresponding springs are deleted The wall will move and deform in order to reach a new equilibrium state

extrieur (e)

Intrieur (i)

y(x)

2nd step (for example):

The equilibrium must satisfy:

The equation of beams

yIV(x) = i(x) e(x)

The equilibrium of horizontal forces ( horizontal forces =0;

extrieur (e)

Moment of horizontal forces = 0) The reaction law

Intrieur (i)

(e) = K0. v - kh. y(x) (i) = K0. v + kh. y(x)

The boundary conditions (at the top and toe of the wall)
yIII(x) =yIV(x) = 0 (for example)

y(x)

3rd step (for example):

It can include: - the installation of a strut - a new excavation step

This will induce: - a new deformation of the wall extrieur (e) - and a force A in the strut

Intrieur (i)

Determination of the Subgrade reaction coefficient

It is not a intrinsec property of the soil (can not be considered as a collection of independant springs) It can not be measured (the result depend on the testing method!) It can only be estimated Several approaches: Based on the pressumeter modulus EM (Balay) Based on and c (Chadeisson) Empirical values proposed by different authors Values resulting from back-analysis

Advantages of the method

Account for the displacement and deformation of the wall in the pressure diagram Gives an estimate of the shape and values of the displacements Account for the different excavation sequences in the loading of the wall Allows to analyse complex cases (different levels of struts or anchors, with or without preloading)

Limits of the method

kh can not be measured Arching effect can not be reproduced One illustration

Association of rigid struts and preloaded anchors

Canal du Midi Station Toulouse subway: Association of 2 levels of steel struts and 2 levels of preloaded anchors

136,20 tte de P.M.

Strut buton 133 NGF

position dfinitive du canal

Made Ground

REMBLAIS

STATION

Molasse Argileuse Clayey Molasses

Strut 120 NGF buton

Molasse Sandy Molasses Sableuse

Molasse
Clayey Molasses Argileuse

Canal du Midi Station Toulouse subway: Association of 2 levels of steel struts and 2 levels of preloaded anchors

Experimental results
-5 135 0

RIDO predictions
15 20

Displacement (mm) dplacement (mm) 5 10

135

exc Excav. 123 123 NGF tirant Anchor 123.5 123.5

NGF

130

130

Excav. 119.5 exc 119.5 NGF

cote NGF NGF level

120

NGF NGFcote level

125

buton 120 + NGF Strut 120 NGF exc 115.55

125

Excav. 115.5

120

115 pied de of la the Bottom diaphragm wall paroi moule 110

18/09/02
Excav. 123 NGF123NGF 27/09/02 - exc Anchor 123.5 NGF 18/10/02 - mise en tension tirants 123.5NGF 25/11/2002 exc 119.5NGF Excav. 119.5-NGF

115

110 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement (mm) dplacement (mm) 6 7 8

105

Excav. 115.5- NGF 04/02/2003 exc 115.5NGF

SGRM calculations under-estimate the displacements and deformations of the wall (ratio of 2)

Experimental results
-5 135 0

Plaxis back-analysis
15 20

Displacement (mm) dplacement (mm) 5 10

135
Excav. 123 NGF exc 123 Excav. 119.5 NGF exc 119.5 Excav. 115.5 NGF exc 115.5

130

130

cote NGF NGF level

120

NGF NGFcote level

18/09/02
Excav. 123 NGF123NGF 27/09/02 - exc Anchor 123.5 NGF 18/10/02 - mise en tension tirants 123.5NGF 25/11/2002 exc 119.5NGF Excav. 119.5-NGF

125

125

120

115

115
pied de of la the Bottom diaphragm wall paroi moule 110

110 0 5 10 dplacements (mm) Displacement (mm) 15 20

105

Excav. 115.5- NGF 04/02/2003 exc 115.5NGF

FEM calculations (Plaxis) give a good description of the observed displacements

Excavation level (NGF)

Force measured in the strut (kN) 750 1250 1400 1600 1600 1900

Force predicted by SGRM (kN)

Force predicted by FEM (kN) 640 1000 1500 1900 2300 2500

129 126 123 121 119 116

850 570 640 670 600 600

RIDO
135

FEM
135

Diffrence des pressions appliques sur la paroi

130

Strut 133 NGF

Diffrence des pressions appliques sur la paroi

130

Anchor 128.5 NGF

125

125

Anchor 123.5 NGF

120

120

Strut 120 NGF

115

115

-300

110 -100

100

300

-300

110 -100

100

300

Better description of the distribution (and re-distribution) of pressures

FEM APPROACH
More and more used by consultants for complex excavations:
Complex geometry (for example non symmetric problem) Use of struts and/or anchors of various types, stiffness, Presence of other structures close to the excavation Possible local soil treatment Coupled analysis in case of water flow (dewatering, pumping, ) The main concern can be the displacements and not the failure (urban sites)

Definition of the geometry Definition of the mesh Definition of the boundary conditions Definition of the initial conditions Choice of the soil model Simulation of the different phases of excavation

Illustration on an example

DESIGN OF THE ANCHORS

Global stabilit Kranz method

PA

C P F

Efforts on the failure wedge P PA C F A active force at the soil wall interface Rankine active force [Ka=tg(/4/2)] effort due to cohesion on the failure ligne (= c . BC) friction force on the failure line anchor force

A W

PA

A F W

C P F P

C PA

A is the anchor force that would lead to global failure P PA C F A active force at the soil wall interface Rankine active force [Ka=tg(/4/2)] effort due to cohesion on the failure ligne (= c . BC) friction force on the failure line anchor force A must be greater than the actual anchor force A required for the wall stability